3 ms·
> I clearly was aware of them. You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the las
by lurk2 2y ago
> I clearly was aware of them.
You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.
> This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has.
Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
- ch4s3 2y ago> You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point. > The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years. Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages. You are clearly misunderstanding me. > Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI. I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen. I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.
- lurk2 2y ago[flagged]
- ch4s3 2y ago> We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment. No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt. > No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue You're being very rude, this isn't twitter.